Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotzlid
the hospital may require it for any patient under the influence. the cops could just as easily summoned the person after they process them at the station. most police departments (again, in my neck of the woods) wont hold very drunk individuals in their holding cells. drunk people do die unexpectedly occasionally. the hospital they brought him to may have a policy of obtaining the alcohol levels of any drunk individual. the main reason for that would be liability. they let an obviously intoxicated patient leave and they go get hit by a bus, its the hospitals fault for releasing them.
if the person was resisting, the cops would assist.
then, they wouldnt need a court order. they could just subpeona the results from the hospital when the case came up.
individuals under the influence are not capable of making informed consent, hence the implied consent.
|
I suspect that this is how the scenario actually went down, and that it encapsulates the logic of the police officers, hospital personnel, and the court.
The hospital most certainly operates under implied consent. How could they not? Furthermore, I've got no problem with people being restrained to protect those hospital workers in the course of their jobs. It's bad enough that they are at risk from your body fluids -- there's no reason for them to also have to fear you punching them in the face while you're drunk or high.
If the blood test results constitute testifying against yourself, they won't be admitted in court.
I'll be totally honest and admit that will's qualifications don't mean anything to me. I'm also not interested in an analysis or diagnosis of dksuddeth's posts. In my eyes, they speak for themselves.